Scribner v. Bd. of Educ. of U.S.D. No. 492
Decision Date | 15 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 116,818,116,818 |
Citation | 419 P.3d 1149 |
Parties | Sallie A. SCRIBNER and Mark E. McNemee, Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF U.S.D. NO. 492, Flinthills, Butler County, Kansas, Appellee, and The State of Kansas, Intervenor. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
David M. Schauner, of Kansas National Education Association, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Edward L. Keeley, of McDonald Tinker PA, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Katy E. Tompkins, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellee.
Dwight R. Carswell, assistant solicitor general, argued the cause, and Jeffrey A. Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, Stephen R. McAllister, solicitor general, Dennis D. Depew, deputy attorney general, M.J. Willoughby, assistant attorney general, Bryan C. Clark, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for intervenor.
For a period before July 1, 2014, the contracts of tenured elementary and secondary teachers in Kansas school districts automatically continued into the next school year unless a school district gave a timely, written notice of termination or nonrenewal that set out the reasons for the termination or nonrenewal and notified the teacher of his or her rights to a due process hearing. See K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-5436 to 72-5438, K.S.A. 72-5439, 72-5441 to 72-5444 (Furse 2002), K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-5445, K.S.A. 72-5446 (Furse 2002). But the 2014 Kansas Legislature removed both (1) the requirement that the Board state its reasons for the termination or nonrenewal and (2) the right to a due process hearing. L. 2014, ch. 93.
Here, two teachers seek a judgment declaring the 2014 amendments to K.S.A. 72-5436 et seq. (the Teacher Due Process Act) unconstitutional because the legislation constituted a taking of their property without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. We reject the teachers' arguments.
Plaintiffs Sallie A. Scribner and Mark E. McNemee filed a joint petition for declaratory judgment and breach of contract in Butler County District Court. According to their petition, both had been teachers employed by the Defendant Board of Education of Unified School District No. 492, Butler County, Kansas (Board). In May 2015, almost one year after the 2014 amendments became effective, the Board sent Scribner and McNemee notices advising them the Board would not be renewing their teaching contracts. The Board did not state its reasons for the decision or give notice of any due process rights. These omissions, according to Scribner and McNemee, violated their statutory rights as they existed before July 1, 2014, rights they contend were taken from them without due process.
The Board answered the petition, contending it had complied with the law in effect on May 2015 and the 2014 amendments were constitutional. The State moved to intervene on Count I in order to defend the constitutionality of the 2014 amendments. The district court granted the motion.
Both the teachers and the Board moved for summary judgment based on the following stipulated facts (paragraphs 1-32):
The district court considered these stipulated facts and, after hearing oral argument, orally ruled in favor of the Board. The district court later filed a journal entry making findings of fact and conclusions of law. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thoroughbred Assocs., L.L.C. v. Kan. City Royalty Co.
...Because Thoroughbred raised that argument for the first time in a reply brief, we need not consider it. Scribner v. U.S.D. No. 492 , 308 Kan. 254, 266, 419 P.3d 1149 (2018) ; Supreme Court Rule 6.05 (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 36). But even if we do, the argument would fail because substantial evi......
-
State v. Little
...Protection Clause. Accordingly, we will not consider any potential claim under the Kansas provisions. See Scribner v. U.S.D. No. 492 , 308 Kan. 254, 262, 419 P.3d 1149 (2018) (declining to consider whether Kansas constitutional provisions on equal protection provide greater protection than ......